U.S. Taxpayers Paying Big for New United Nations Building

Ready to fork over some of your hard-earned dollars to help the United Nations construct a new building — and for New York City to build a new park? Well then you’re in luck.

Heritage’s Brett Schaefer writes at National Review Online that the U.N. is erecting a new building next to its existing tower in Manhattan, on an existing playground. The U.N. hasn’t provided the Obama administration or Congress an official cost estimate for the project or a detailed justification of the need for the building, but Schaefer says earlier estimates pegged it at $400 million–and that could go much higher.

Meanwhile, New York is expected to make $200 million to $400 million from the deal, much of which will be used to build a park along the East River. Schaefer reminds us that the U.S. taxpayer pays 22 percent of the U.N. budget. And in his article, he explains how that money has been spent in the past:

Earlier this decade, construction of a new U.N. building was estimated to run about $400 million. And New York wants $65 million for the playground property. Add those two figures for a lowball estimate. The cost could go much higher, however. After all, the current renovation of the U.N. building was initially estimated at $600 million. It’s now expected to wind up costing more than $2 billion.

The U.S. taxpayer will likely be expected to shoulder 22 percent of the increased expenses resulting from the new U.N. building. This works out to just over $100 million under the lowball estimate, but could easily be three or even four times that amount. And it should surprise no one if we’re also asked to assume sole fiscal responsibility for security upgrades related to the new building. After all, as we saw in 2010, the U.S. was expected to pay for $100 million in security-related expenses — above and beyond our regular “fair share” contribution for the renovation project.

So — with the exceptions of a handful, maybe, of countries, not including our own, the world is bankrupt — and we need a new UN building for 100s of millions of dollars??? Actually, the building is a relic but now is the most fiscally irresponsible time to build a new one — and a new one should be built in Brussels anyway. We don't need the expense and aggravation.

WHEN are the citizens of this country going to kick the United Nations out???? This useless organization is nothing more than a leech, sucking out our money and demanding more of it all the time. We've endured this bunch of jerks long enough; they need to be gone, and the sooner, the better!

Why not let the TAX PAYERS vote on this. Let's see just how many want this building even BUILT here in the US. Why not let France build one there? If we must have one here why not build it in Arizona where the good honest (sic) politicians are less lightly to cause problems. They'll have special Hotels and places to eat.
They can walk between the parking lot, hotel, restaurant and the new UN building. Maybe they'll get some things done for a change..

Nuts to that. If we are only one fifth of the security council that votes on resolutions, we should pay AT MOST one fifth of the costs.
I would prefer that we withdraw from the UN altogether and send them packing to Switzerland or France. Level the UN building and put a park in it's place.

I suggest that the United Nations leave the U.S. There is little merit to have this corrupt, do- nothing organization on our soil . The entire UN is a bunch of eunuchs who want the gravy train and high salaries to continue. I encourage Congress to get us out of this totally corrupt organization.

Clearly…it is time to defund the UN…at least require justification for any project-based spending like this.
Why is more space needed? All costs, including security must be shared among all member nations.

I'm not sure where your readers come from! The "put-downs" on the UN is amazing and not understandable in view of their accomplishments worldwide! Possibly most of them have never visited the UN or attended a program there.

Name one significant actual accomplishment of the UN that even begins to justify the amount of money we have spent on this gang of bloodsuckers who vote against our interests while we pay them to do so.

where are the readers coming from?
how about putting some of the WORST human rights offenders in CHARGE of the human rights commision?
or how it is constantly bringing up resolutions against one of our staunchest allies, Israel. When Israel is the one that is constantly attacked by it's neighbors. And constantly being bombed.(When was the last an Israeli strapped on a bomb and blew up a park or market? yeah, keep looking.)
or the fact that despite countless resolutions against Hussein, it refused to act. Even as far a France lobbying against the US. Then it comes out that France was doing business with him, illegally, all along?

All of the above are very good comments. I would bet our handicaped military could use the $400 million, plus another $400 million over run costs. Where are the republicans and other people in authority?? Do we the people have to demonstrate on all of this crap to get some logical attention?????

The UN is nothing but a den of thievs and thugs-so called leaders fortefying 'commumism to more
islamists'.These days they confiscate our money to fatten the degenerate islamists against Israel and the
west,while they are dumb,igorant and willfully blind to in particular to bastardly islamic sharia Iran whose main purpose is to attack and put-out Bible believing Christians.The present example is Pastor Youcef
Nandakhani who is given the death sentence,just for being a Christian.Where the hell is the damned UN-
Usless Nincompoops on this!

Judging by the hundreds of thousands of Americans who troop into the UN as tourists everyday of the year, including especially on holidays, clearly not all Americans feel so negatively about the UN as the comments above. The UN has done, and continues to do lots and lots of good around the world. This includes preventing a global war and civil wars, mediating, peacekeeping and post civil war reconstruction. It harmonizes global policies on financial, economic and social advancement in general, taking care of refugees, working on environmental issues, human rights, women's rights, poverty, diseases like HIV and AIDS, malaria, etc, outer space, oraganizing and monitoring elections in many parts of the world, supplying doctors, teachers, nurses, engineers, town planners, etc, where they are needed especially in Asia, Africa, Middle East, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere; working on oceanography, education, and so many other issues most people never hear about, but which affect their lives. What the UN spends in one year is much less than what is spent in one day on war and armaments by many Governments. The leaders of 193 countries around the world recognize the importance and value of the UN, which is why they are members and strongly support the UN. And that is why they are UN members and come to New York every year for the UN General Assembly. You may not know it, but New York City earns more than $6 billion (six billion US dollars every year from the presence of the UN in the City. Other countries have in fact offered to host the UN, but the US Government, the State and City of New York have fought to keep the UN here, because they know and appreciate the value of UN presence here. Because of the UN's presence here, they call New York City "the capital of the world". Please make the effort to find information about what the UN is, and what it does, so that you can make informed and therefore intelligent comments about the UN.

The UN is an example of what the one world government folks, e.g., Obama, the Clintons, George Soros, would like to see play a larger role in the "leadership" of the world. The UN, being clearly a corrupt, irrelevant organization with designs against the free world, should not be supported IN ANY WAY by any country interested in free market economies and democracy.

Can anyone name for the interested readers here who the last Secretary General of the UN was who was not corrupt. Ban Ki-Moon who leaves positions unfilled (there are no key positons in the UN because of its irrelevance) and can't defend the ones he does fill? I think not. Kofe Annan who served two scandal ridden terms hallmarked by the ineptitude of the UN peacekeeping obligations, e..g, the Congo; Iraq's oil for food program. I think not. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, barely elected after five votes, who failed to correct promised, necessary reforms in the UN. I think not. Compromise candidate Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (elected to prevent China's puppet from getting the job). I think not. Kurt Waldheim, who was labelled by a post-World War II UN–note the UN in the commission's title–War Crimes Commission as a suspected war criminal – based on his involvement with the Nazi German army. I think not. How far back do we need to go? Enough said. US out of the UN. The UN out of the US. Please!

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.